Would someone please add psychedelics to all the champagne, caviar and sparkling water on the tables of the obscenely rich and make it part of the rations for serving military personnel. Dietary advice: consume with caution, you may experience adverse reactions to your sense of reality.
It's unethical and dangerous to dose people without their knowledge and consent. Furthermore, I question the assumption, because I've heard more than one story, tho the one I remember as about Nelson Rockefeller, taking LSD "and it just amplified his dreams of power and glory." But I'm glad to read that some of these people can be reclaimed--I've wondered whether full sociopaths--which I expect most of these people are--are actually missing certain brain structures necessary for empathy. Maybe that's the difference--is you are a full-on sociopath, without the necessary brain widgets, LSD won't do anything useful for you but if you just have had your beliefs and values warped from an early age and been influenced by the strivers surrounding you, you can be reclaimed.
Good point about the ethics involved Mary. But I suppose it begs a bigger question about what is 'administered' to our bodies and brains without our knowledge or consent via immersion in our messed-up culture. Probably a widespread practice and perhaps the very basis of both our unwitting conformity and our chronic ill-health, including mental illness.
Please upgrade the lingo to en-THEO-gens, rather than the old 1960s terms, 'psychedelics,' & 'hallucinogens.' These older terms reflect
the ignorance, misunderstanding, & fears of an earlier period.
In contrast, the term 'en-theo-gen' offers a much higher and clearer meaning: a *substance which generates the inner meeting with God* (by temporarily dismantling the superficial overlay of the unconscious programmed ego construct)!
Good catch, on your part! The word-symbol "God" is by now practically meaningless, i.e., it is basically an *empty signifier* term, and has no meaning until the astute communicator provides a clear definition for it .
To be clear, I certainly am not referring to the fascist, fundamentalist, divisive, anthropocentric humanoid "God" of that satanically misleading, deceptive book that many call "the Bible."
Rather, only awakened universal Truth-awareness sets us ALL FREE from our ignorant delusions. Thus, when I refer to "God," I am simply referring to universal, all-pervasive,
omni-conscious, indivisible, whole-y Unicity *Reality,* i.e., THIS REAL PRESENCE which already always IS...THIS EverHereNow Presence---which is our own truest primary innate birthless-deathless identity---in fact the primary true essence'l identity of ALL.
Note the distinction between the God(s) of old-fashioned, patriarchal, separative/divisive sectarian religious constructs visávis the indivisible Whole-y-ness of timeless/formless universal Reality, the Real Whole-y One.
Uhhhh. No, while that explanation does improve things, I don’t believe in some kind of spiritual abstract god any more than I do a bearded fella sitting on a cloud. We are a collection of independent animals living near each other.
Beautiful, Caitlin. Money doesn’t lead to happiness, it breeds greed. Like Frodos ring, it gives power and then possess you. People are the source of truth, love and happiness. If we continue within the confines of a money-oriented system, as opposed to a people-oriented one, we will march into the jaws of extinction.
The "Greed is Good" ethos, that has been indoctrinated here in the US (and elsewhere in the West) now for the last half century, and justified by propaganda based mostly on social darwinian principles - is for sure, marching the species toward extinction. The US now has a dribbling old man fool for POTUS, spends trillions of dollars every decade on a military that is not even capable of flying hypersonic missiles, and maintains billion dollar aircraft carriers that pretty much have a giant bullseye painted on their flight decks, easily targeted by any hypersonic missile today, which the US military could not stop if their lives depended on it. And as we edge ever closer to a nuclear conflict that psychotic bloodthirsty jack asses like Lindsey Graham champion with his psychotic exhortations of blood and death and power at any cost - it's that or pretty much GREED killing the planetary ecosystem because those who are running the show with their unending pursuit of more money, couldn't give a flying hoot about what happens to the rest of humanity once they croak. And part of that is because the dominant belief system that now holds sway over these sociopathic goons and Western society is Existential nihilism. That reality is nothing more than a giant mechanistic machine, and human life just accidental cogs in this machine universe. Survival - mere survival is all that means anything. Narcissistic greed is the only value.
When larger roads are built to solve congestion, more cars always seem to come.
When more weapons are built to feel unthreatened, more wars always seem to be the outcome.
When more profits are targeted at all costs, society always seems to get poorer.
When progress is measured by expansion and economic growth, our natural world always seems to end up the victim.
When more safety and security is sought, our privacy and freedom always seem to be lost.
External measures of progress and success are destroying us and our planet, humanity seems to be in short supply, lost in a dystopian nightmare of our own making - it seems that huge swathes of us need shaking awake somehow, not just the rich and the powerful, but all those captivated by the show, caught up in the illusion...we need some sort of mass psycadelic/spiritual moment of awakening, all at once, it seems!
This is so brilliantly said. I have sometimes joked that I am allergic to money, but what that really means is that the system of competing with others and the way the incentives are set up makes the idea of being successful a turn off. I can claw my way up to some midwit level so my tax dollars can be used to bomb and poison people all over the world? Once the hierarchy of needs of basic levels is met there will be questions regarding the purpose of your life. Dying with the most toys does not equal winning. Killing people for the most toys is even worse...and that's what a lot of corporate grinds are becoming.
CJ>>"Psychedelics are useful not for the hallucinations they provide but for the hallucinations they dispel. You actually have to be mentally ill to achieve what this profoundly sick society of ours defines as “success”. Your head has to be full of a bunch of fantasies and fictional narratives which have no basis in material reality."
Yes! This is Capitalism. It is a sickness - maybe even a mental one. In some ways, it's worse than a virus -> people are born into it from birth, brainwashed and gaslighted, and most don't even know if there exist alternatives. And if one is to start looking at alternatives, all the "OTHERS" that are brainwashed and gaslighted from birth EXCLUDE the alternatives-searchers and non-comformists from society (using cancel culture, trolling, personal attacks, etc.). CAPITALISM is an insidious and depraved mental SICKNESS.
I wish there was a VACCINE that could be injected into someone (like the psychedelics example here) that could work as a cure for the DISEASE of CAPITALISM.
>>"Chang what alternative do you see that has succeeded at scale?"
Mark - NONE! Here are some reasons why:
(1) How do you define "success" - and for whom? For the many? Or for the few? Capitalism by its very nature is an exploitative system. It necessarily creates "winners" and "losers" by the very logic of Capitalism. It worsens "inequality" and everything that entails (you can read more on that in "The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better" [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6304389-the-spirit-level])
(2) NO system has succeeded at scale - not capitalism, not feudalism, not techno-feudalism, not mercantilism, etc.
(3) Communism (Marx and Engel's version - not the fake/faulty versions of Stalin, Mao, etc.) has NEVER been implemented at SCALE (for many reasons - too long to go into here)
(4) Similarly, SOCIALISM has "not been given" the opportunity to thrive and succeed. The US Empire (and its allies and various other entities) have done everything possible to PREVENT Socialism from taking root and evolving - through coups, regime change operations, US Foreign Policy, geopolitics, trade barriers, sanctions, US dollar hegemony, control of resources, militarism, and so many other strategies).
(5) Capitalism externalizes the COSTS i.e. costs to the planet, to the environment, to the ecology, to human societies. If anything, Capitalism is MORE destructive to the planet than ANY system before it (some reasons include the need for ever-increasing growth and profits, etc.)
Ask yourself WHY? Why has the US so desperately tried to PREVENT the growth and evolution of Socialism and Communism throughout the world? If "their" system of Capitalism is SO GREAT, then what do they have to be fearful about with "alternatives to Capitalism" (like socialism, communism, etc.)?
I’m going to make a bold statement: THERE ARE NO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES, "in the DEVELOPED world". Even China, which is nominally communist (therefore socialist) has greatly opened up its economy to private ownership since the death of Mao, and today, about 70% of the economy is in private hands (see What percentage of the Chinese economy is state-owned? http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n2588035/n2588330/n2588370/c3778802/content.html). There remain parties that have “socialist” in their names, but even they are not actually militating for a socialist system.
Socialism is a specific economic/political form of society in which the means of production are owned by the population as a whole, typically through the government. The Soviet Union and its satellites were socialist (for a brief period of time).
There is no developed country in which the means of production are all owned by the government. There are many countries in which certain companies are owned by the government, typically companies dealing with public goods, such as railroads, utilities, etc. In France, the national rail service is owned by the government, for example, and in the United States, the postal service is government owned. This does not make either of the two countries socialist.
Neither is there any developed nation that is truly entirely “capitalist”, if capitalism means allowing only Adam Smith’s invisible hand to regulate business. In the 19th century, for example, capitalism in most countries was given a freer hand. However, in the late part of the century and early part of the 20th century, just about every country started regulating it more closely. For example, in the United States in 1900 there were no child labor laws, no laws against workplace discrimination, no laws limited the workweek, no right to strike, no anti-trust laws… etc. Likewise, there was virtually no public “safety nets”, i.e. transfer payments to the poor, disabled, orphans, etc. This was similar to other nations.
Since then, most countries have instituted all of these laws, regulations and public aid programs. Some have gone farther than others. In France (to get back to your question), total governmental spending as a percent of GDP is quite high, at 56.7%, as compared to 37.6% in the United States (https://www.oecd.org/fr/data/indicators/general-government-spending.html). This could be seen as a general idea of the role of government in the economy, so the country has clearly decided to move more to the “left” of the United States economically.
The reason why all the existing "socialist" countries have not developed into "communism" is that they are all still surrounded by hostile imperialist and capitalist nation-states and are therefore still in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism (transition to communism can't occur until all the major imperialist capitalist classes are overthrown by their respective working classes - as per Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky). Mixed economies like China's have *vastly* outperformed every established capitalist economy over the past 30 years - proof that socialist state planning - combined with a strictly regulated capitalism under Communist Party control - works quite well, indeed.
Yes, imporant points to keep in mind. Thank you Mark - most people don't know/understand this as very few seem to have read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky.
Jenny, these "socialist" reforms/advantages/benefits that you observe in France (and other similar countries) is a result of generations of the poor and downtrodden fighting for rights and justice and fairness. And unfotunately, it is being eroded over time (even as we speak).
In a sense, whatever benefits are perceived in countries (such as France) can also be viewed from the angle of "as stop-gap measures by the Capitalist/bourgeoisie class to placate the proletariat class from revolting and being a challenge to the system and the status quo". (i.e. it does NOT take the changes/advantages of Socialism far enough - in some respects it maintains the current illusions and complacency against the Capitalist class).
(PS: This is just my opinion and many may not agree with it).
Yes - I am not arguing against benefits. The benefits ARE crucial - and they are needed - EVERYWHERE (not just in France). My point was something else entirely.
A society that doesn't put rich people above everyone else. A society without wage slaves and bought off politicians and fat ass billionaires running for president.
France is a capitalist country, because the majority of the economic production in France is organised as follows:
- private ownership of the means of production;
- production of commodities to be sold on the market;
- production with the objective of making a profit;
- production by wage labour
- profits are reinvested in the production leading to a cycle of capital accumulation.
To be sure, there is production in France which occurs outside of capitalist enterprises:
[A] There are public companies, where part of the means of production are publicly owned, but -
(a) the majority of companies are still privately owned, capitalist companies, and
(b) even most public companies are only partly owned by the state and their shares are traded on the stock exchange;
[B] there is a non-profit sector where the provision of goods and mostly services occurs without a profit motive and/or without selling those goods or services as commodities on the market.
This does not alter the fundamentally capitalist nature of the economy of the country, as most of the economic production is still capitalist.
First-class analysis. I only hesitate to agree that this world is "unfathomably beautiful." I'd be more inclined to say that it's unfathomably interesting. . . But then, maybe that amounts to the same thing.
Or some of both, given there were different people who brought to, and took away, some very different perspectives. Some have remained steadfast in standing for peace and justice, and still vote third-party.
Or Perhaps, rather than dancing on the graves of those that have suffered the hallucination of separation you could try to release yourself from your anger and hate by asking the plant medicines for perspective.
I don't need to be released from anything (other than this depraved world when the time comes). These billionaires NEED to be released from "earth AND humanity". Maybe you don't get that? Maybe you're focusing on the wrong things? Maybe you're on their side?
The concept of “their side” is exactly the hallucination of separation that is the cause of all the disfunction. By plant medicines dispelling this illusion, the true nature of reality can be finally witnessed. Is this not in alignment with your medicine journey experiences?
Yep. Anyone that tries to take the "focus" away from some of the "REAL PROBLEMS" of our society (like billionaires for instance and the systems that enable their creation) is not engaging in "good faith".
Well, if you kill them, you will almost certainly just get more of them, because that is how people have constructed their societies. That is, the social order is, so to speak, _designed_ to protect and preserve the wealth and interests of the rich, powerful, and well-connected. This includes their great leaders, bigdeals, and associated monsters as well as their innumerable assistants.
"It isn’t even necessary to take psychedelics." Yes, but it helps. Had it not been for LSD, I doubt that I would have seen through the curtain that most of us are surrounded by for our entire lives. I can understand a corporate flake being shocked to discover he/she was on the wrong side of history. Psychedelics are not addictive like the capitalist drugs that keep us blinded. The information that was missing from the article is what are those people who dared to look beyond the curtain doing now. I bet they are much happier and are doing good things for humanity. When I dropped acid I didn't see god, I saw all the misery and suffering in the world. I've followed through to the best of my ability on my resolve to work for the betterment of all people. -Jim Smith, The Left Coast
Unfortunately for 99% of us commenting here, we don't have the luxury to be highly paid CEOs of tech firms pumped up on IPO cash and the ability to just up and retire after taking a trip to Nicaragua for some Ayahuasca and realizing that, yeah, work sucks ass.
Well said - yes, these "CEO" freaks have the luxury of doing what they do AFTER making their wealth exploiting people. All they have to do after that is sit around and wax poetic while their CAPITAL sustains their lifestyles by utilizing the financialization mechanisms of our financialized late-stage capitalist systems.
"When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease. " — John Maynard Keynes
Would someone please add psychedelics to all the champagne, caviar and sparkling water on the tables of the obscenely rich and make it part of the rations for serving military personnel. Dietary advice: consume with caution, you may experience adverse reactions to your sense of reality.
That was my first thought after reading this article too. A change of consciousness is desperately needed, especially for the folks with the power.
It's unethical and dangerous to dose people without their knowledge and consent. Furthermore, I question the assumption, because I've heard more than one story, tho the one I remember as about Nelson Rockefeller, taking LSD "and it just amplified his dreams of power and glory." But I'm glad to read that some of these people can be reclaimed--I've wondered whether full sociopaths--which I expect most of these people are--are actually missing certain brain structures necessary for empathy. Maybe that's the difference--is you are a full-on sociopath, without the necessary brain widgets, LSD won't do anything useful for you but if you just have had your beliefs and values warped from an early age and been influenced by the strivers surrounding you, you can be reclaimed.
Good point about the ethics involved Mary. But I suppose it begs a bigger question about what is 'administered' to our bodies and brains without our knowledge or consent via immersion in our messed-up culture. Probably a widespread practice and perhaps the very basis of both our unwitting conformity and our chronic ill-health, including mental illness.
Yep. Corps insert all sorts of psycho manipulations into our consciousness on the daily.
'... you may
experience adverse
reactions to your sense of reality."
.
your sense of 'reality' will be
given a swift Kick in the pants
when you see thru the Deceptions
.
and Realize
we are ALL
'god' & ya
Don't got-
ta Idolize
Any One
or Thing
anym-
ore.
makes it
damn Difficult
to field an Army.
perhaps they need
to 'practice' in cow fields.
.
you know -- where
the Mushrooms
are
Please upgrade the lingo to en-THEO-gens, rather than the old 1960s terms, 'psychedelics,' & 'hallucinogens.' These older terms reflect
the ignorance, misunderstanding, & fears of an earlier period.
In contrast, the term 'en-theo-gen' offers a much higher and clearer meaning: a *substance which generates the inner meeting with God* (by temporarily dismantling the superficial overlay of the unconscious programmed ego construct)!
Can you say "Entheogens"?
What is this "God" you speak of?
Good catch, on your part! The word-symbol "God" is by now practically meaningless, i.e., it is basically an *empty signifier* term, and has no meaning until the astute communicator provides a clear definition for it .
To be clear, I certainly am not referring to the fascist, fundamentalist, divisive, anthropocentric humanoid "God" of that satanically misleading, deceptive book that many call "the Bible."
Rather, only awakened universal Truth-awareness sets us ALL FREE from our ignorant delusions. Thus, when I refer to "God," I am simply referring to universal, all-pervasive,
omni-conscious, indivisible, whole-y Unicity *Reality,* i.e., THIS REAL PRESENCE which already always IS...THIS EverHereNow Presence---which is our own truest primary innate birthless-deathless identity---in fact the primary true essence'l identity of ALL.
Note the distinction between the God(s) of old-fashioned, patriarchal, separative/divisive sectarian religious constructs visávis the indivisible Whole-y-ness of timeless/formless universal Reality, the Real Whole-y One.
Uhhhh. No, while that explanation does improve things, I don’t believe in some kind of spiritual abstract god any more than I do a bearded fella sitting on a cloud. We are a collection of independent animals living near each other.
There are differences between "entheogens" and "psychedelics" (while also sharing similarities).
Reference: https://www.psypost.org/entheogens-vs-psychedelics-what-is-the-difference/
Everyone should be required to do a psilocybin trip annually.
"Ten men in our country could buy the whole world and ten million can't buy enough to eat."
~Will Rogers
Beautiful, Caitlin. Money doesn’t lead to happiness, it breeds greed. Like Frodos ring, it gives power and then possess you. People are the source of truth, love and happiness. If we continue within the confines of a money-oriented system, as opposed to a people-oriented one, we will march into the jaws of extinction.
The "Greed is Good" ethos, that has been indoctrinated here in the US (and elsewhere in the West) now for the last half century, and justified by propaganda based mostly on social darwinian principles - is for sure, marching the species toward extinction. The US now has a dribbling old man fool for POTUS, spends trillions of dollars every decade on a military that is not even capable of flying hypersonic missiles, and maintains billion dollar aircraft carriers that pretty much have a giant bullseye painted on their flight decks, easily targeted by any hypersonic missile today, which the US military could not stop if their lives depended on it. And as we edge ever closer to a nuclear conflict that psychotic bloodthirsty jack asses like Lindsey Graham champion with his psychotic exhortations of blood and death and power at any cost - it's that or pretty much GREED killing the planetary ecosystem because those who are running the show with their unending pursuit of more money, couldn't give a flying hoot about what happens to the rest of humanity once they croak. And part of that is because the dominant belief system that now holds sway over these sociopathic goons and Western society is Existential nihilism. That reality is nothing more than a giant mechanistic machine, and human life just accidental cogs in this machine universe. Survival - mere survival is all that means anything. Narcissistic greed is the only value.
When larger roads are built to solve congestion, more cars always seem to come.
When more weapons are built to feel unthreatened, more wars always seem to be the outcome.
When more profits are targeted at all costs, society always seems to get poorer.
When progress is measured by expansion and economic growth, our natural world always seems to end up the victim.
When more safety and security is sought, our privacy and freedom always seem to be lost.
External measures of progress and success are destroying us and our planet, humanity seems to be in short supply, lost in a dystopian nightmare of our own making - it seems that huge swathes of us need shaking awake somehow, not just the rich and the powerful, but all those captivated by the show, caught up in the illusion...we need some sort of mass psycadelic/spiritual moment of awakening, all at once, it seems!
Nice! But it isn’t “seems,” it is!
Well said!
If psychedelics persuade people to quit pissing their potential away at bullshit jobs and smell the roses then power to the psyches.
This is so brilliantly said. I have sometimes joked that I am allergic to money, but what that really means is that the system of competing with others and the way the incentives are set up makes the idea of being successful a turn off. I can claw my way up to some midwit level so my tax dollars can be used to bomb and poison people all over the world? Once the hierarchy of needs of basic levels is met there will be questions regarding the purpose of your life. Dying with the most toys does not equal winning. Killing people for the most toys is even worse...and that's what a lot of corporate grinds are becoming.
Competition, one of greed's favorite tools, dehumanizes by dividing us into winners and losers and, like greed, it isn't self limiting.
Well said!
CJ>>"Psychedelics are useful not for the hallucinations they provide but for the hallucinations they dispel. You actually have to be mentally ill to achieve what this profoundly sick society of ours defines as “success”. Your head has to be full of a bunch of fantasies and fictional narratives which have no basis in material reality."
Yes! This is Capitalism. It is a sickness - maybe even a mental one. In some ways, it's worse than a virus -> people are born into it from birth, brainwashed and gaslighted, and most don't even know if there exist alternatives. And if one is to start looking at alternatives, all the "OTHERS" that are brainwashed and gaslighted from birth EXCLUDE the alternatives-searchers and non-comformists from society (using cancel culture, trolling, personal attacks, etc.). CAPITALISM is an insidious and depraved mental SICKNESS.
I wish there was a VACCINE that could be injected into someone (like the psychedelics example here) that could work as a cure for the DISEASE of CAPITALISM.
Entheogens seem to offer the highest probability of such a cure for the western capitalist-materialist-nationalist-egocentric programmed psyche.
Chang what alternative do you see that has succeeded at scale? Please enlighten us.
>>"Chang what alternative do you see that has succeeded at scale?"
Mark - NONE! Here are some reasons why:
(1) How do you define "success" - and for whom? For the many? Or for the few? Capitalism by its very nature is an exploitative system. It necessarily creates "winners" and "losers" by the very logic of Capitalism. It worsens "inequality" and everything that entails (you can read more on that in "The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better" [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6304389-the-spirit-level])
(2) NO system has succeeded at scale - not capitalism, not feudalism, not techno-feudalism, not mercantilism, etc.
(3) Communism (Marx and Engel's version - not the fake/faulty versions of Stalin, Mao, etc.) has NEVER been implemented at SCALE (for many reasons - too long to go into here)
(4) Similarly, SOCIALISM has "not been given" the opportunity to thrive and succeed. The US Empire (and its allies and various other entities) have done everything possible to PREVENT Socialism from taking root and evolving - through coups, regime change operations, US Foreign Policy, geopolitics, trade barriers, sanctions, US dollar hegemony, control of resources, militarism, and so many other strategies).
(5) Capitalism externalizes the COSTS i.e. costs to the planet, to the environment, to the ecology, to human societies. If anything, Capitalism is MORE destructive to the planet than ANY system before it (some reasons include the need for ever-increasing growth and profits, etc.)
Ask yourself WHY? Why has the US so desperately tried to PREVENT the growth and evolution of Socialism and Communism throughout the world? If "their" system of Capitalism is SO GREAT, then what do they have to be fearful about with "alternatives to Capitalism" (like socialism, communism, etc.)?
What do you call a Society that has free healthcare/schools. 6 week holidays a yea/maternal aid and free housing for old people with medical aid?
Part (2) of response:
I’m going to make a bold statement: THERE ARE NO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES, "in the DEVELOPED world". Even China, which is nominally communist (therefore socialist) has greatly opened up its economy to private ownership since the death of Mao, and today, about 70% of the economy is in private hands (see What percentage of the Chinese economy is state-owned? http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n2588035/n2588330/n2588370/c3778802/content.html). There remain parties that have “socialist” in their names, but even they are not actually militating for a socialist system.
Socialism is a specific economic/political form of society in which the means of production are owned by the population as a whole, typically through the government. The Soviet Union and its satellites were socialist (for a brief period of time).
There is no developed country in which the means of production are all owned by the government. There are many countries in which certain companies are owned by the government, typically companies dealing with public goods, such as railroads, utilities, etc. In France, the national rail service is owned by the government, for example, and in the United States, the postal service is government owned. This does not make either of the two countries socialist.
Neither is there any developed nation that is truly entirely “capitalist”, if capitalism means allowing only Adam Smith’s invisible hand to regulate business. In the 19th century, for example, capitalism in most countries was given a freer hand. However, in the late part of the century and early part of the 20th century, just about every country started regulating it more closely. For example, in the United States in 1900 there were no child labor laws, no laws against workplace discrimination, no laws limited the workweek, no right to strike, no anti-trust laws… etc. Likewise, there was virtually no public “safety nets”, i.e. transfer payments to the poor, disabled, orphans, etc. This was similar to other nations.
Since then, most countries have instituted all of these laws, regulations and public aid programs. Some have gone farther than others. In France (to get back to your question), total governmental spending as a percent of GDP is quite high, at 56.7%, as compared to 37.6% in the United States (https://www.oecd.org/fr/data/indicators/general-government-spending.html). This could be seen as a general idea of the role of government in the economy, so the country has clearly decided to move more to the “left” of the United States economically.
The reason why all the existing "socialist" countries have not developed into "communism" is that they are all still surrounded by hostile imperialist and capitalist nation-states and are therefore still in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism (transition to communism can't occur until all the major imperialist capitalist classes are overthrown by their respective working classes - as per Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky). Mixed economies like China's have *vastly* outperformed every established capitalist economy over the past 30 years - proof that socialist state planning - combined with a strictly regulated capitalism under Communist Party control - works quite well, indeed.
Yes, imporant points to keep in mind. Thank you Mark - most people don't know/understand this as very few seem to have read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky.
Depends what you mean by Socialism.
There are many types!
No, it doesn't depend on "MY" definition of Socialism. I suggest reading up on Socialism (if you're interested in understanding it better).
Part (3) of response:
Jenny, these "socialist" reforms/advantages/benefits that you observe in France (and other similar countries) is a result of generations of the poor and downtrodden fighting for rights and justice and fairness. And unfotunately, it is being eroded over time (even as we speak).
In a sense, whatever benefits are perceived in countries (such as France) can also be viewed from the angle of "as stop-gap measures by the Capitalist/bourgeoisie class to placate the proletariat class from revolting and being a challenge to the system and the status quo". (i.e. it does NOT take the changes/advantages of Socialism far enough - in some respects it maintains the current illusions and complacency against the Capitalist class).
(PS: This is just my opinion and many may not agree with it).
I have ONLY one answer to this:
We have these 'benefits' which to me are CRUCIAL.
The French have got used to them and if/when they are taken away the whole country will be in revolution.
Yes we have a huge problem with the Police who are despicable and always have been. I was in prison here and it was terrifying.
You don't need to tell the French what is happening...they know and are brought up on politics.
Yes - I am not arguing against benefits. The benefits ARE crucial - and they are needed - EVERYWHERE (not just in France). My point was something else entirely.
A society that doesn't put rich people above everyone else. A society without wage slaves and bought off politicians and fat ass billionaires running for president.
This is France. Liberal Socialism BUT it is changing fast!
Yes. France has done pretty well for itself for some time. Then a cretin like Macron comes along.
Part (1) of response:
France is a capitalist country, because the majority of the economic production in France is organised as follows:
- private ownership of the means of production;
- production of commodities to be sold on the market;
- production with the objective of making a profit;
- production by wage labour
- profits are reinvested in the production leading to a cycle of capital accumulation.
To be sure, there is production in France which occurs outside of capitalist enterprises:
[A] There are public companies, where part of the means of production are publicly owned, but -
(a) the majority of companies are still privately owned, capitalist companies, and
(b) even most public companies are only partly owned by the state and their shares are traded on the stock exchange;
[B] there is a non-profit sector where the provision of goods and mostly services occurs without a profit motive and/or without selling those goods or services as commodities on the market.
This does not alter the fundamentally capitalist nature of the economy of the country, as most of the economic production is still capitalist.
We all understand what is happening here in France we don't need you to tell us.
Guess you didn't read the comment? It explains how France is NOT socialist, but Capitalist.
if only we might
edit Out the
Reptilican
Brain-
stem.
You can figure out which country the cia is operating in by what drugs are popular in the usa.
First-class analysis. I only hesitate to agree that this world is "unfathomably beautiful." I'd be more inclined to say that it's unfathomably interesting. . . But then, maybe that amounts to the same thing.
certainly unfathomable, and interesting, and beautiful.
Back in the 1960's the idea of drugs and sex leading to world peace was popular. Maybe we had the right idea.
or maybe it was jst a fad.
Or some of both, given there were different people who brought to, and took away, some very different perspectives. Some have remained steadfast in standing for peace and justice, and still vote third-party.
Caitlin. You monster. I love you.
Spot on. I'll be dancing on Elon's grave. Who wants to join me?
I most definitely will! And Mark Zuckerburg, and Jeff Bezos, and soooo many others...
Or Perhaps, rather than dancing on the graves of those that have suffered the hallucination of separation you could try to release yourself from your anger and hate by asking the plant medicines for perspective.
I don't need to be released from anything (other than this depraved world when the time comes). These billionaires NEED to be released from "earth AND humanity". Maybe you don't get that? Maybe you're focusing on the wrong things? Maybe you're on their side?
The concept of “their side” is exactly the hallucination of separation that is the cause of all the disfunction. By plant medicines dispelling this illusion, the true nature of reality can be finally witnessed. Is this not in alignment with your medicine journey experiences?
I think you've been smoking too much (or the wrong stuff maybe?)
Come back down to reality...and the real world. ESCAPISM (through your experimentation with psychedelics) can only work for so long.
The hallucination of separation.
Fascinating framing.
Similar to the Sioux Nation’s Mitakuye Oyasin???
Or, am I missing your point???
If I had seen that in life I might believe in it.
whoa.
Jg def
hit a nerve.
Yep. Anyone that tries to take the "focus" away from some of the "REAL PROBLEMS" of our society (like billionaires for instance and the systems that enable their creation) is not engaging in "good faith".
Well, if you kill them, you will almost certainly just get more of them, because that is how people have constructed their societies. That is, the social order is, so to speak, _designed_ to protect and preserve the wealth and interests of the rich, powerful, and well-connected. This includes their great leaders, bigdeals, and associated monsters as well as their innumerable assistants.
"It isn’t even necessary to take psychedelics." Yes, but it helps. Had it not been for LSD, I doubt that I would have seen through the curtain that most of us are surrounded by for our entire lives. I can understand a corporate flake being shocked to discover he/she was on the wrong side of history. Psychedelics are not addictive like the capitalist drugs that keep us blinded. The information that was missing from the article is what are those people who dared to look beyond the curtain doing now. I bet they are much happier and are doing good things for humanity. When I dropped acid I didn't see god, I saw all the misery and suffering in the world. I've followed through to the best of my ability on my resolve to work for the betterment of all people. -Jim Smith, The Left Coast
Unfortunately for 99% of us commenting here, we don't have the luxury to be highly paid CEOs of tech firms pumped up on IPO cash and the ability to just up and retire after taking a trip to Nicaragua for some Ayahuasca and realizing that, yeah, work sucks ass.
Well said - yes, these "CEO" freaks have the luxury of doing what they do AFTER making their wealth exploiting people. All they have to do after that is sit around and wax poetic while their CAPITAL sustains their lifestyles by utilizing the financialization mechanisms of our financialized late-stage capitalist systems.
Exactly.
the trouble is perhaps only a few will start to see what's real. the rest may go deeper into the heart of darkness.
Yes, isn't that the tragedy? As in the movie Matrix, waking people up from their delusions (or even society's delusions) is incredibly hard.
"When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease. " — John Maynard Keynes